Changes

*against private prisons, ''[[Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko|Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko]]'', 534 U.S. 61 (2001)

*against private prisons, ''[[Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko|Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko]]'', 534 U.S. 61 (2001)

*harassment and intimidation aimed at extracting an easement across private property, ''Wilkie v. Robbins'', 127 S. Ct. 2588 (June 25, 2007)

*harassment and intimidation aimed at extracting an easement across private property, ''[[Wilkie v. Robbins]]'', 127 S. Ct. 2588 (June 25, 2007)

The [[Supreme Court]] has inferred causes of action for damages from the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. ''Carlson v. Green'', 446 U.S. 14 (1980); ''Davis v. Passman'', 442 U.S. 228 (1979); ''Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics'', 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In ''Bivens'', the Court held that a plaintiff may recover damages from a federal officer who has violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Noting that damages were the ordinary remedy for invasion of personal interests in liberty, the Court reasoned that monetary relief was appropriate for a Fourth Amendment violation inasmuch as there were neither any "special factors counseling hesitation" in awarding that relief nor any explicit congressional declaration that persons injured through an invasion of their Fourth Amendment interests may not sue directly under the amendment "but must instead be remitted to another remedy, equally effective in the view of Congress." ''Id.'' at 395, 396, 397.<ref>''See [[Bishop v. Tice]], 622 F.2d 349, 354-55 (8th Cir. 1980).</ref>

The [[Supreme Court]] has inferred causes of action for damages from the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. ''Carlson v. Green'', 446 U.S. 14 (1980); ''Davis v. Passman'', 442 U.S. 228 (1979); ''Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics'', 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In ''Bivens'', the Court held that a plaintiff may recover damages from a federal officer who has violated the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Noting that damages were the ordinary remedy for invasion of personal interests in liberty, the Court reasoned that monetary relief was appropriate for a Fourth Amendment violation inasmuch as there were neither any "special factors counseling hesitation" in awarding that relief nor any explicit congressional declaration that persons injured through an invasion of their Fourth Amendment interests may not sue directly under the amendment "but must instead be remitted to another remedy, equally effective in the view of Congress." ''Id.'' at 395, 396, 397.<ref>''See [[Bishop v. Tice]], 622 F.2d 349, 354-55 (8th Cir. 1980).</ref>